I saw Hercules on mute while I was bowling. Highly recommended, at least in this format. One of my teammates made us pay attention to all the bits where Hercules (played by Dwayne Johnson) used his bulging muscles to flip horses, pull himself free of pillars to beat his enemies with the chains, and so on.

Eravial wrote:In addition to disagreeing, I'm also just confused by what you said about taking the ending literally, since I don't think any horror films are supposed to be taken literally.

Just want to say I also found this puzzling. If the issue is plausibility (like, could it actually happen), I don't think I watch horror films for that element.

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:Get Out - It's a satire of the black experience in the form of the suspense/thriller genre. Anyone with an ounce of wit wouldn't take the ending literally and understand it's more like mocking appropriation of black culture by white people. .5

It's still pretty good, just doesnt feel like a 4 or 5 movie.

I have to wholeheartedly disagree. This was also the last film I saw, and I thought it was FANTASTIC, easily . It's also far more complex than you've made it sound. It intelligently tackles problems with white liberalism, from appropriation and tokenism to the dehumanization/objectification of black people. It's a huge metaphor for the insidiousness of racism in a culture that thinks itself post-racial. It shows (in a way that white people can actually start to understand) why many black people don't feel like they can trust white people, or large groups of white people, even if they are liberal. The friend I saw it with and I talked about it for a while after leaving the theater, and we were still making connections between different elements of the film an hour later. It was just super well done. I recommend you read some black people's takes on the film. This one was good. This podcast was great.

That's why it's a 3 out of 5. Because the political statement and satire is excellent but I didn't feel the thriller aspect was on par with the rest of it. And that to me brings it down when it's supposed to be both horror and satire.

My mention of people taking the ending literally is a reference to the user reviews on rotten tomatoes who clearly don't understand the symbolic meaning of the ending, [spoiler]thinking it's only about evil white people wanting to be black[/spoiler]. It's such a simplistic interpretation that they have to be taking it literally.

After some reassessing, I'm uping it to , the missing one represantative of the thriller aspects not being quite up to par with everything else.

Beauty & The Beast (2017) - The acting and singing are serviceable, but that's about it. The movie is an almost beat for beat remake of the original. Very few changes are made, and out of the ones that are, most of them aren't explored enough or they don't make sense. Also, the original did a much better job at developing the romance and in a shorter time. I didn't buy the budding romance in this one because it misses a key element from the original. The new songs are alright, but I did like the new song for Maurice. LeFou and Gaston were fun, but that has more chemistry than the two leads. So a prettily dressed remake with too many undeniable flaws.

Spoilers:

Good Changes
Provided a little more depth to Maurice.
Gay LeFou

Providing more development about what happened to Belle's Mom: she died of the plague.

Bad changes:
In the original, Beast is coached by Lumiere to provide Belle better accomadations. In the trip to her room, he tells her she has free roam of the castle except the west wing. She also promises not to leave. Right here, they have an uncomfortable interaction but Lumiere helps Beast tap into his humanity, even though he still needs to dig even deeper later on. This establishes Belle being able to see more in him when he rescues her. She gets to reflect on that sliver of humanity she experienced and realize that there must be more to him if he's willing to risk his life. This is where the romance begins to develop when he makes a conscious effort to change for the better and she becomes more open to his less refined but non-abusive) ways.

In this new version, Lumiere releases her so there is no direct contact between her and the Beast in a way that shows some humanity between the time she is imprisoned and the time she is rescued. Not only this, she makes no promise to stay so there's absolutely nothing keeping her there, not even her word. In fact she even begins an attempt to escape but is interrupted by Mrs. Potts and she never tries again until the Beast scares her. There's nothing built into her decision to go back beyond his rescue. By decreasing her interaction, they remove any depth from her decision to return which in turn decreased any chemistry they would build.

And speaking of the scene in which Beast scares Belle from the West Wing and castle, Belle actually interacts with the bell bar and nearly comes into contact with the wioting rose. The rose being tied to the curse, this justified Beasts anger, which hides his fear of the petals falling. In the new version, she doesn't get within 40 ft of the damn thing before Beast scares her off.

They have a throw away line about the servants standing by while the son was molded into the terrible beast you saw This provides an explanation as to why the servants were cursed too, but it's never actually explored. This would have been a great change from the original. They could have really delved into the Beast's background and they didn't.

These issues really stand out when I think about them and just makes me realize how near perfect the original was.

I really like the early history of NASA. Going to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington and the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL were like religious experiences for me; merely being in the presence of an Apollo capsule or a Saturn V rocket section makes me ecstatic. In my enthusiastic reading, as both a kid and an adult, I've perused the histories, schematics, math problems, and accounts of early rocketry and space flight. I really like the film Apollo 13.

Hidden Figures combines that interest and wonder with the figures often hidden in those histories and accounts: Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson. The aeronautical is also the personal - the film manages to focus simultaneously on the immediate effects of segregation on these women, the mission everyone had to put a man in space, and their personal lives. (For me, a scene where Dorothy Vaughan goes with her son to the library sticks out in particular.

She's looking for a book on FORTRAN so she can learn how to maintain the new IBM at Langley. A librarian approaches her for being in the white section of the library, and after a tense exchange the scene cuts to she and her son being led out the door by an officer. She yells at him to let go of her son; the tension between protecting her child and not overstepping the place she's been put in and being arrested is palpable. Then another cut - they're sitting in the back of a segregated bus. Dorothy is lecturing her son about what's fair and what's right, and she pulls the library book out of her coat. Her son asks about it. Dorothy quips back that it's her right: she paid the taxes that paid for every book, so it's hers. I don't have the words to describe Octavia Spencer's acting throughout the scene; it's pitch-perfect.

) All this is to say I really like it. I came in for the NASA history and interest in learning more about segregation, and came away entertained, awed, and wanting to learn more. I want to teach this film as soon as possible, and I've already got plans to read the nonfiction book the film is based on.

I finally got around to seeing Ghostbusters. I went in with fairly low expectations, but quickly became pleasantly surprised. All the leads had great chemistry, everyone was funny, I was thoroughly enjoying myself. None of the complaints I've heard about it are valid, in my opinion.

But then I noticed a weird cut that confused me. One scene ended abruptly and the next one started abruptly, like they forgot to come up with a transition. Then I noticed it happen again. Then again. Then one of the cameos occurred in the same sense. The awkward editing became just too distracting to me. At some point in the movie, I started noticing some jokes falling flat for me, too. It started out with so much promise, I was really disappointed when the finale hit and I just wasn't that invested anymore. It somehow went from great to all right by the end.

And I didn't really care for the music. I was still fairly entertained throughout the movie, but I probably won't be buying this one.

"He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world." - Dr. Mungmung

Maybe I've read about enough utopian worlds that I usually begin looking for the skulls under the surface, or maybe I've seen enough films involving demi-gods that I can predict the moment they'll shift from "we/life" to "I/no one else," or maybe I saw that Kurt-Russel-lookalike Jeff Bridges movie where his alter-ego was a tyrant seeking to choke out all life not like him, but it was easy to foresee the plot points a mile away. Yep, skulls under the surface. Yep, he wants to kill all life for being imperfect. Yep, Ego just went "god" from Star Trek V. The delight was in the reactions of characters, the momentary spectacles, the humor, and especially in Yondu's love and sacrifice for Starlord. I'll give it a lot for those things, but it didn't take any risks with my expectations, so I felt like I'd seen this film before.

I liked it as this medievalist metal action flick, brooding and serious to the point of near-absurdity at points, willing to crack some humor at other points.

So, as an action flick it's rather light on the explanations, and at times a bit muddled. The action begins with a besieged castle and lots of action. Names fly; some of them stick. To the credit of the filmmakers, it felt legendary. As director, Guy Ritchie likes having characters describe what's going to happen over montages of it happening, something that keeps the film quick-paced but has led me later to wonder whether a couple of scenes actually happened. (And not in an awesome, subjective, postmodern way.) He, perhaps, could have done The Hobbit in 2.5 hours, making it similarly enjoyable but somewhat fuzzy in parts. The action is fun; good fights, yeah. The acting is pretty good too, both in the central and supporting cast.

The film is heavy on machismo. Arthur becomes a man who learns how to protect the brothel workers who helped raise him. He surrounds himself with men who know how to talk fast, crack a joke, and put on a stiff upper lip under tremendous pressure. Moms die and are absent; dads die and sons witness their deaths, perhaps repeatedly. Phallic symbols fly. Spoiler:

Arthur needs to repeatedly relive and face the death of his father in order to master Excalibur (his phallic symbol) and overcome the serpentine, phallus-tower-constructing Vortigern. His mom also dies in these cutscenes, but she doesn't fight, and Arthur never engages her in these flashbacks. In the middle of the movie, a boy named Blue witnesses his father interrogated and killed by Vortigern; the death triggers an immediate reaction in Blue, and a more gradual determination in Arthur.

Men do a variety of things, many of them centered on fighting, drinking, or acting politically. Women are subsumed into various supportive roles: they advise and encourage (Lady of the Lake); they support with magic (Mage); they die while fulfilling little other plot function (most of the other named women).

I've read some reviews that lament the lack of a focused Arthurian narrative here. In one way, they're right - this isn't the classic Arthur of Sword in the Stone or Le Morte Darthur, as seen in Excalibur. However, its subsuming of women, its focus on the phallic masculinity of men, and its interest in some scant political ethos being developed in Arthur seems Arthurian in a medievalist, anachronistic sense: it's some of the worst parts of the Arthurian mythos mixed with some of the most potent, readapted into a form that doesn't care it mixes four temporalities in vast, anachronistic fashion (~500 CE Londinium + 1400 CE arms and armor + 1100 CE allusions to Crusader narratives + some of the politics of today).

I really want to like it. Arthur is directly in my field of study. I read and appreciate Arthurian texts with substantial flaws that I don't overlook but I manage to deal with. Similarly, here, I enjoyed it (anachronisms and all) and could talk about it all day, and by that measure it succeeded. Still, I'm exasperated by its core conservatism, especially regarding gender. I feel like they used their own vision of what "medieval" is to justify putting men front and center and putting four women in (not literal) refrigerators. "THIS IS MEDIEVAL!" it screams with every set, every gesture, every retrograde gender assumption. "You can do better," I reply, and I'm not referring to the prop anachronisms.

Wonder Woman - For me, best DC movie since Dark Knight. Themyscira is beautiful. It's like they discovered there was more to a color palette than grey and it is just a gorgeous landscape. They really take advantage of the Greek mythos that inspired Wonder Woman. Gal Gadot is great and I don't see a model. I see Diana/Wonder Woman. She and Chris Pine have great chemistry. The humor takes advantage of the fish out of water scenario, but it never gets in the way of the drama and action. Speaking of the action, the action is great, even with the CGI. My only nitpick would be that they overused the slow motion a tiny bit and it does slow a bit in the second act. Still, it's a very good comic book movie. And I feel Patty Jenkins was successful in making a great superhero movie with a character that happens to be female. It does not feel at all like only women can appreciate it and I found myself smiling throughout. Oh, one last nitpick. The villain is a hidden one, making them not very compelling, and anyone who is familiar with the tendencies regarding Greek mythology will be able to immediately guess who it is.

3 small points:
1. The filmmakers did a good job of representing the diversity available in the British empire through crowd shots, as with short shots of Sikh soldiers in a train station. I saw this as both a historic nod to present-day anxieties (look! we've been multicultural for generations!) and a soft thematic admonishment of imperialism: (thematic spoiler)

one point brewing throughout the film is the idea that the UK and US have been the aggressors and conquerors in wars, even if they appear to be the good guys in the Great War. They are subtler versions of Chief, who says to Wonder Woman at one point that, yes, Chris Pine's people slaughtered and subjugated his own.

2. Gal Gadot was compelling and Chris Pine was solid. Even so, I have to tip my hat to the supporting cast. Antiope (Robin Wright) was effective as a general and the more martial counterpart to Diane's mother Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen). Those early scenes established the crux of Amazon society: be ready for war, but don't look forward to it. Then Charlie (Ewen Bremner) as a Scottish sharpshooter and Etta Candy (Lucy Davis) as a secretary were both favorites of mine.

3. I don't like DC that much, usually. I grew up with Marvel and Archie. As an adult my favorite Batman is from the 1960s and my favorite Superman is from the 1970s. But there are a handful of DC moment or characters that I really like, and now more than ever that includes Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman. I'm jumping on the bandwagon. Some of the CGI was just plain unconvincing, but most of it was ok, a few too many slow motion shots for my taste, though they were handled better than the other DC movies I've seen, and the villains were a bit one note.

The Ares plot twist was really predictable for me. It felt like another case of an actor acting a bit shady from the start because he knows he's secretly the main villain.

Aside from all this, I really enjoyed it. It's the first DC movie that was intentionally funny. I laughed through a good chunk of Batman v Superman, but for different reasons entirely. It was refreshing finding myself actually caring for the characters when shit went down towards the end.

"He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world." - Dr. Mungmung

Saw Wonder Woman two nights ago. I was generally impressed. They did a better job than all the recent superhero movies IMO. The dialogue was not too cheesy.

The one egregious error that they made which I can't really forgive them for is that Diana was actually breathed to life, not by Zeus, but by APHRODITE and the other Goddesses. In her origin story the female Goddesses play a huge role... we almost never see them except when they are villains (Aries, Hades). But I know it's not the first time they've done that. In the cartoons she always refers to herself as Zeus' creation. They either didn't know this in their historical research or they chose to leave it out because it might be a bit too "girl power" for all those cocky Hollywood men.

The CGI stuff was a bit obvious and that disappointed me. It should be convincing right up front because in 5 years it won't be. Which means these movies are not made to be timeless but one-offs, so that they can recycle them again later.

I could've gone without the 3 references to the size of Steve's (Chris Pine's) penis. Like ok, we get it, you're sort of "side kicky" in this movie to a really powerful woman. I feel like male-dominated Hollywood just couldn't help themselves in their usual puerile way.

I hated, hated, hated that she had sex with Steve. The kiss was forgivable. The whole romantic segue really bothered me. She had such a one-track mind about her mission from beginning to end, as warriors tend to, and yet this guy swept her off her feet for a night. At least they didn't show it, that would've been worse.

Her innocence was endearing but also kind of annoying. They got a little too close to portraying her as ditzy. It's not like all of the social norms of Themyscira are so radically different from the outside world. I found their depiction of her ignorance not all that believable. So you can speak every language known to humanity yet you don't know that you can't just pick up some random woman's baby?

The action scenes pretty much made up for everything else. I loved how the female narrative was about transforming violence into acceptance, war into peace, hate into love, and without much male help.

I give it 4.5 / 5 and I'd love to see it again.

The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

Saw Wonder Woman two nights ago. I was generally impressed. They did a better job than all the recent superhero movies IMO. The dialogue was not too cheesy.

The one egregious error that they made which I can't really forgive them for is that Diana was actually breathed to life, not by Zeus, but by APHRODITE and the other Goddesses. In her origin story the female Goddesses play a huge role... we almost never see them except when they are villains (Aries, Hades). But I know it's not the first time they've done that. In the cartoons she always refers to herself as Zeus' creation. They either didn't know this in their historical research or they chose to leave it out because it might be a bit too "girl power" for all those cocky Hollywood men.

The CGI stuff was a bit obvious and that disappointed me. It should be convincing right up front because in 5 years it won't be. Which means these movies are not made to be timeless but one-offs, so that they can recycle them again later.

I could've gone without the 3 references to the size of Steve's (Chris Pine's) penis. Like ok, we get it, you're sort of "side kicky" in this movie to a really powerful woman. I feel like male-dominated Hollywood just couldn't help themselves in their usual puerile way.

I hated, hated, hated that she had sex with Steve. The kiss was forgivable. The whole romantic segue really bothered me. She had such a one-track mind about her mission from beginning to end, as warriors tend to, and yet this guy swept her off her feet for a night. At least they didn't show it, that would've been worse.

Her innocence was endearing but also kind of annoying. They got a little too close to portraying her as ditzy. It's not like all of the social norms of Themyscira are so radically different from the outside world. I found their depiction of her ignorance not all that believable. So you can speak every language known to humanity yet you don't know that you can't just pick up some random woman's baby?

The action scenes pretty much made up for everything else. I loved how the female narrative was about transforming violence into acceptance, war into peace, hate into love, and without much male help.

I give it 4.5 / 5 and I'd love to see it again.

I know I'm risking being a pedantic mansplainer her, but in more recent comic incarnations, it is Zeus that has a hand in her origin.

Saw Wonder Woman two nights ago. I was generally impressed. They did a better job than all the recent superhero movies IMO. The dialogue was not too cheesy.

The one egregious error that they made which I can't really forgive them for is that Diana was actually breathed to life, not by Zeus, but by APHRODITE and the other Goddesses. In her origin story the female Goddesses play a huge role... we almost never see them except when they are villains (Aries, Hades). But I know it's not the first time they've done that. In the cartoons she always refers to herself as Zeus' creation. They either didn't know this in their historical research or they chose to leave it out because it might be a bit too "girl power" for all those cocky Hollywood men.

The CGI stuff was a bit obvious and that disappointed me. It should be convincing right up front because in 5 years it won't be. Which means these movies are not made to be timeless but one-offs, so that they can recycle them again later.

I could've gone without the 3 references to the size of Steve's (Chris Pine's) penis. Like ok, we get it, you're sort of "side kicky" in this movie to a really powerful woman. I feel like male-dominated Hollywood just couldn't help themselves in their usual puerile way.

I hated, hated, hated that she had sex with Steve. The kiss was forgivable. The whole romantic segue really bothered me. She had such a one-track mind about her mission from beginning to end, as warriors tend to, and yet this guy swept her off her feet for a night. At least they didn't show it, that would've been worse.

Her innocence was endearing but also kind of annoying. They got a little too close to portraying her as ditzy. It's not like all of the social norms of Themyscira are so radically different from the outside world. I found their depiction of her ignorance not all that believable. So you can speak every language known to humanity yet you don't know that you can't just pick up some random woman's baby?

The action scenes pretty much made up for everything else. I loved how the female narrative was about transforming violence into acceptance, war into peace, hate into love, and without much male help.

I give it 4.5 / 5 and I'd love to see it again.

I know I'm risking being a pedantic mansplainer her, but in more recent comic incarnations, it is Zeus that has a hand in her origin.

I had several issues with how they altered the story, from a comic readers perspective. But mostly because it limits the mystical stuff in the current world and that really cuts down on future material for another Wonder Woman movie (since so much of her storylines in the books deal with that stuff). Which means they'll likely make stuff up or warp some stories and we'll get another BvS type steaming pile of pseudo familiar garbage. I think everyone who saw it with me was annoyed I had so many critics about it >.<

Still 4/5 in my books

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

As a long time watcher (fan is a bit of stretch) of Alien movies and sci fi in general I had to see this movie but tried not to have high expectations so I could enjoy it.
However I ruined this movie by watching the pre-qual Prometheus 1st.

Overal itss similar to the original alien movies which is a bit of a bad thing. Prometheus was visually stunning. The future tech from doors to corridors to spaships was well thought and animated. Covenant offers far less visually. Most of the movie takes place on a ship where you cant tell a difference from room to room.

The acting was done well.

The story and plot is predictable, the aliens while having a presence are not integrated that well. They are there and yes they kill but you outright see it coming which takes away from suspence and they are just there while the story pushes forward to a predictable ending. The story was ok at best. This movie was like a stepping stone filler. It solved a few mysteries about the 1st movie but thats about it.

I left the theater feeling literally nothing. Wasnt a bad movie but not a good one either

Aum wrote:
I could've gone without the 3 references to the size of Steve's (Chris Pine's) penis. Like ok, we get it, you're sort of "side kicky" in this movie to a really powerful woman. I feel like male-dominated Hollywood just couldn't help themselves in their usual puerile way.

I hated, hated, hated that she had sex with Steve. The kiss was forgivable. The whole romantic segue really bothered me. She had such a one-track mind about her mission from beginning to end, as warriors tend to, and yet this guy swept her off her feet for a night. At least they didn't show it, that would've been worse.

Her innocence was endearing but also kind of annoying. They got a little too close to portraying her as ditzy. It's not like all of the social norms of Themyscira are so radically different from the outside world. I found their depiction of her ignorance not all that believable. So you can speak every language known to humanity yet you don't know that you can't just pick up some random woman's baby?

The action scenes pretty much made up for everything else. I loved how the female narrative was about transforming violence into acceptance, war into peace, hate into love, and without much male help.

I give it 4.5 / 5 and I'd love to see it again.

I was not thinking penis size with that lol. I took it as he was used to girls being more swoony, which is fairly cocky but whatever.

I kind of agree with the Steve love interest thing, it was kind of unnecessary. But she did just sleep with him. She never said she loved him. The girl has never met a man, she can have a fun night. I think our reading of that has a lot to do with our assumptions of what sleeping with a man means to a woman.

I did like how they reversed the trope of a woman dying to further the man's story.

In her defense the only baby she's known is herself and from the beginning scene it seems like she was a bit of a community child. So no in her world I think you can pick up someone else's baby.

From what ive read (not a comic book reader) I understand that she's had about 10 different origin stories depending on who is writing her. So I think this origin story is as good as any. It definitely feels in the spirit of her original concept as a defender of truth and justice.

I would watch it a thousand times for two reasons. The fantastic portrayals of women with pride and skill. And to watch a woman fight for her own cause.

Spider-Man Homecoming: I'm feeling a 9 out of 10. I'm a big Spider-Man geek, so, to me, it's probably a without the fanboyness. It's better than I thought it was going to be.

I miss the spider sense. You can tell he had it in Captain America: Civil War, but people were sneaking up on him constantly in this movie. Little inconsistencies like this are one of the issues of shared cinematic universes. Too many cooks. But yeah, when's the last time we had a spider sense in a movie? I remember Amazing Spider-Man didn't show it, but I never bothered watching the sequel. I realize that writing for it could be as difficult as writing a movie about wishes because it makes him nearly unstoppable and can break the film, but still.

I'm still randomly coming across criticism of Tomei as Aunt May. I mean, she's in her 50s, how is that too young to play a 15-year-old kid's aunt?
I mean, someone 15 years old could realistically do that. Is it because she's not 80 like in other incarnations? Why does she always have to be some clueless, elderly woman that's old enough to be his grandmother or even great grandmother? It's kind of boring.

Speaking of age, a lot of people celebrated the fact that a teenager was playing Spider-Man in Civil War. Now he's in his twenties playing 15. They're talking about setting these movies a year apart, but filming them every 2 or so years? If so, he'll be pushing 30 when he's still supposed to be a teenager, so not much different there in the long run.

People say Tony Stark wasn't on it all that much, but it felt like quite a bit to me. Still, it didn't feel like just another chapter in a bigger story to me, though it could have been self contained a bit more. At least it didn't end on a cliffhanger with an after-the-credits scene that, sorry, might as well have someone say, "Next time in the MCU!" in the style of the DBZ narrator.

And apparently people didn't like MJ? I liked her a lot. At some point, I was wondering why Spider-Man only dates models that aren't nerds. Why does he never end up with someone like Michelle? I was pretty happy when she revealed that her friends call her MJ. I heard she's not officially an interpretation of Mary Jane, but she's given those initials to remind us of that dynamic. I doubt we'll get a Mary Jane, which is fine with me.

Some of Spider-Man's movements seemed great, but there were a number of occasions where it felt unnatural to me.

"He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world." - Dr. Mungmung

i saw Sparrow (2008), a Hong Kong crime movie with pickpockets. it was light and not very engaging imo but very clean and nicely shot. the director, Johnnie To, is considered very good though and now i am going to see more of his films. i'd give it a 3.8/5.

I'm not sure what I think. I enjoyed the movie mostly but I felt like they departed so much from the usual format and characterisations that I wasn't actually watching a wolverine movie? It was like they wanted the feel of Shane and completely ignored all previous character development. Plus the ultra violence. I know it's trendy but I hate that shit. That helpful family really didn't need to die. Except apparently this is actually a modern western and in modern westerns everyone needs to die (no country for old men, etc). How can people watch that without feeling sick to their stomach? And honestly where's the plot value?

i FINALLY saw Wonder Woman. Agreeing with but perhaps for slightly different reasons than some listed here already. Spoiler thoughts below.

so overall i loved it, but i didn't like Steve's death as Diana's motivation to access her powers. I do see Enigma's point about it reversing a trope, but I tend to agree with my roommate that it makes a man the driver of the action - which he arguably is from the beginning, as it's his arrival in Themiscyra that sets off the plot.

Also I ADORED Robin Wright being badass, I just want a gif of her telling me I'm stronger than I know to play whenever I feel down on myself. It was funny because I'd been watching House of Cards earlier that night, in which she plays a different kind of badass who I also adore.